to clarify, I'm not saying this will happen, I'm not saying this should happen or even could happen, I was just curious.

It seems as if the Bruins front office and Rask have a very good relationship. Let's say both sides agree that Rask has a value of 6M a year over 6 years. 36 million over 6. What do you think Bettman would do if Rask, and the bruins signed a 1 year contract for 3.5M, and then on July 5th inked a 5 year extension for 6.5M a year. Same money, same term, but it gives the bruins cap flexibility in the year where the cap goes down. Would that instantly be viewed as cap circumvention, nixed, and then the Bruins would face Rask going to the UFA market or do you think it would be allowed?

Just curious. Now excuse me while I start nervously drinking for game 4.

If it were during the season, I don't think it would raise any eyebrows, but there is no way a player would agree to this. The possibility of getting injured is too great in hockey. If he goes down with an injury that ends his career in pre-season, the B's just walk away.

It would have made more sense before the playoffs when I suggested it. "We've signed this deal going into the playoffs so that Tuukka knows the franchise is committed to him for next year and so he can concentrate on the playoffs and his contract. We are committed to getting a long term deal done with Tuukka that is fair to him and to the Boston Bruins, but we will revisit that after the playoffs."

Done. The only way to argue that this is "cap circumvention" would be if someone could prove beyond a shadow that the Bruins and Rask already had a deal in place and were only doing this to circumvent the cap. I honestly don't think this is "circumvention". Every step of it is within the rules of the new CBA, and, unlike in past years, there's no phantom money here. Tuukka will get it all and what he gets will be reflected in the Bruins cap hit for the year in which he plays. In fact, I think it's so legit, I think someone should balls it out and do it. "Tuukka has shown his commitment to the team by taking a one-year deal that helps us keep the core of this team together and pursue another Stanley Cup in a year where the reduced cap could have made that impossible. We are grateful and hope to repay this loyalty in Tuukka's next contract. Under the CBA, we can begin to negotiate that deal at any time and we will do so as soon as is convenient for all parties." I'd take that to court if the league tried to block it.

okay. to play devils advocate for a second, let's say that the series ends on the 22nd, and on the 24th, Rask inks a 1 year, 3.5 million dollar deal. Both sides say they are working on a long term extension, but didn't want it to get to the point where he could field offers from other teams on july 5th. They wait until a week before training camp opens up, so a matter of several months, and rask signs the 5 year extension. It would certainly raise eye brows, but I wonder if it would be enough to veto. In the Kovalchuk deal, there was a very reasonable expectation that he wouldn't play out the duration of the contract. There was precedent set by countless players. In thinking about it, I'm not 100% sure the league could nix this without facing a legal battle which I would bet the bruins would ultimately win.

It would have made more sense before the playoffs when I suggested it. "We've signed this deal going into the playoffs so that Tuukka knows the franchise is committed to him for next year and so he can concentrate on the playoffs and his contract. We are committed to getting a long term deal done with Tuukka that is fair to him and to the Boston Bruins, but we will revisit that after the playoffs."

Done. The only way to argue that this is "cap circumvention" would be if someone could prove beyond a shadow that the Bruins and Rask already had a deal in place and were only doing this to circumvent the cap. I honestly don't think this is "circumvention". Every step of it is within the rules of the new CBA, and, unlike in past years, there's no phantom money here. Tuukka will get it all and what he gets will be reflected in the Bruins cap hit for the year in which he plays. In fact, I think it's so legit, I think someone should balls it out and do it. "Tuukka has shown his commitment to the team by taking a one-year deal that helps us keep the core of this team together and pursue another Stanley Cup in a year where the reduced cap could have made that impossible. We are grateful and hope to repay this loyalty in Tuukka's next contract. Under the CBA, we can begin to negotiate that deal at any time and we will do so as soon as is convenient for all parties." I'd take that to court if the league tried to block it.

Are you not entertained?!?!

There are two huge holes in this.

1. Both sides agree in the backroom and the player gets hurt. The team doesn't offer the extension.

2. Both sides agree in the backroom and the player chokes in the playoffs. The team doesn't offer an extension.

Both of them have the potential to screw the player. The team is insulated either way.

He's got until the 5th before someone can put out an offer sheet, right? They pushed it back to after the holidays in the last CBA? (I think that was the "Bob McKenzie" clause, because he was tired of never being able to enjoy his Canada Day and being stuck on the air for 12 hours instead.)

So the urgency isn't too bad. If the playoffs end on Saturday, I ebtcha he'll be signed by draft day.

It would have made more sense before the playoffs when I suggested it. "We've signed this deal going into the playoffs so that Tuukka knows the franchise is committed to him for next year and so he can concentrate on the playoffs and his contract. We are committed to getting a long term deal done with Tuukka that is fair to him and to the Boston Bruins, but we will revisit that after the playoffs."

Done. The only way to argue that this is "cap circumvention" would be if someone could prove beyond a shadow that the Bruins and Rask already had a deal in place and were only doing this to circumvent the cap. I honestly don't think this is "circumvention". Every step of it is within the rules of the new CBA, and, unlike in past years, there's no phantom money here. Tuukka will get it all and what he gets will be reflected in the Bruins cap hit for the year in which he plays. In fact, I think it's so legit, I think someone should balls it out and do it. "Tuukka has shown his commitment to the team by taking a one-year deal that helps us keep the core of this team together and pursue another Stanley Cup in a year where the reduced cap could have made that impossible. We are grateful and hope to repay this loyalty in Tuukka's next contract. Under the CBA, we can begin to negotiate that deal at any time and we will do so as soon as is convenient for all parties." I'd take that to court if the league tried to block it.

Are you not entertained?!?!

There are two huge holes in this.

1. Both sides agree in the backroom and the player gets hurt. The team doesn't offer the extension.

2. Both sides agree in the backroom and the player chokes in the playoffs. The team doesn't offer an extension.

Both of them have the potential to screw the player. The team is insulated either way.

Not really. Rask is no more screwged by having a bad playoff with that one year deal than he would be with no deal. And if he plays well, you make the deal before he plays another game. Make the deal as a camp announcement, roughly five months after that first deal.

It's also a risk for the club given that you're talking a guy who is RFA now but will be UFA at the end of the next year, so if you don't get the deal done, and he feels cheated, he goes to the highest bidder and you're left holding the bag.

guys, in this scenario, he signs deal 1 right after the finals end, signs deal 2 before training camp starts.

I like this. The league would have nothing to say about deal #1, and I don't see how they can prove collusion on deal #2. They have no way of knowing the thought process of either the team, or the player, and could not prove anything.

Cap-circumvention was much more obvious in the last CBA, with front-loaded contracts, and the NHL rarely interfered with those deals.